respect of age, to provide, in a case within its jurisdiction, the legal protection which individuals derive from the rules of Community law and to ensure that those rules are fully effective, setting aside any provision of national law which may conflict with that law (paragraphs 74-77). In referring to a ‘general principle of Community [now EU] law’, the CJEU is referring to uncodified norms which have been recognised in the case-law of the CJEU over time and which have equivalent status to primary treaty law. These are recognised by the CJEU on the basis of ‘common constitutional traditions’ of the Member States, i.e. where certain principles are universally shared, they are deemed to form part of EU law too. As such, the CJEU is effectively saying that though the transposition deadline of the directive articulating this general principle had not passed, the general principle itself was applicable and as such could be invoked directly in order to set aside a conflicting national norm. Bearing in mind that the Directives, explicitly, articulate fundamental rights (which are general principles), an argument of this kind could be made. 2. Pleading the ECHR with support of the Directive Unlike EU law, whose supremacy arises from the Treaties, the status of the ECHR in national law depends upon the constitutional arrangements. However, there are arguably ways in which the Access to a Lawyer Directive could be used before its deadline, to support high-level litigation based on the ECHR. Some lessons can be drawn from cases following the Salduz v. Turkey decision. In the UK, the Supreme Court found the system of police custody in Scotland contrary to the ECHR,27 noting for this purpose the practices in many countries and the case-law of the ECHR, which showed there was a clear standard. The result was that the non-compliant legislation was urgently reformed. In France, in a July 2010 decision28 the Constitutional Council found the law excluding lawyers from police custody unconstitutional. A reform was adopted, and was due to enter into force in July 2011. In the meantime, initial decisions of the Court of Cassation said, police custodies conducted in line with the existing legislation would be considered valid, prior to entry into force of the new legislation.29 But the plenary chamber of the Court of Cassation then intervened to hold that it was incumbent upon the courts to ensure respect for Article 6 ECHR there and then,30 leading prosecutors to issue urgent guidance in the image of the new law not yet in force. The later ruling was – quite possibly – the result of France being held in violation of Article 6 by the ECtHR around the same time, so that it became patently clear that in preserving the effects of the existing law was preserving a situation contrary to international law. Arguably, the Access to a Lawyer Directive would, in equivalent situations today, provide additional support for arguments based on the ECHR, showing that there is a full EU consensus around certain norms and giving national courts greater support in giving effect to the ECHR in accordance with the constitutional arrangements which apply in the Member State concerned. However, as the Dutch case discussed below makes clear, this is not a simple exercise. 27 Cadder v Her Majesty's Advocate (Scotland) [2010] UKSC 43. Decision 2010-14/22 QPC of 30 July 2010. 29 Judgments 5699, 5700 and 5701 of 19 October 2010. 30 Judgments 589, 590, 591, 592 of 15 April 2011. 28 16